We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rodlands Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rodlands Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Rodlands Care Home is an adapted residential care home registered to provide care and support for up to 21 people. The home is situated in a residential area of Weymouth, Dorset. The home provides care and support to older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people who were living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We have made a recommendation about strengthening the governance systems and the oversight within the home. The deputy manager immediately sought to make improvements found during the inspection. The management of the home were open throughout and keen to continually develop and make changes.
People received their medicines as prescribed. However, some guidance to ensure consistent practice was not in place. The management team worked to put the guidance in place by the second day of inspection. The home had a recruitment process in place and people had the necessary safety checks in place. However, some documentation was not completed in full, the deputy manager addressed this immediately.
People were safe with the care they received at Rodlands Care Home, there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. People's risks were assessed, staff knew people well. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to ensure lessons were learnt and shared. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Infection prevention and control procedures were robust, the home was clean and hygienic. The home worked well extremely with external professionals and sought their input as needed. Staff knew to report concerns under safeguarding and the management team understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Staff were confident their concerns would be followed up. Staff felt appreciated, part of the family and supported and were proud to work at Rodlands Care Home.
People and relative’s views were actively sought through meetings and surveys. The registered manager and deputy manager understood the importance of their role and had made all notifications to CQC as required by law.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 31 July 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained as good based on the findings of this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Although the registered manager was away during day one and day two of our inspection we spoke with them on day three.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence indicated the home remained Good although we have recommended it refers to current guidance on best practice for improving the home environment to make it more ‘dementia friendly.’
People felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from harm and abuse. They understood what signs to look for and how to raise a concern. The home had robust recruitment processes to ensure that people were supported by staff who were suitable to work with them. People had personalised risk assessments that staff understood and used to help reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely. Staff were confident with this task and had regular, formal observations to check their competency. The home conducted audits to ensure incidents or issues were resolved and chances of them reoccurring minimised.
People’s needs and choices were assessed with their involvement. This included listening to them and noting aspects of their lives that were important to them and made them individuals. This diversity was acknowledged, respected and supported. Reviews of the support people required were completed and included evidence that they were included in these discussions. People were supported by staff that had received training that gave them the skills and confidence to meet their specific needs. People were supported to have a balanced and varied diet. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. This included support to attend routine appointments or with visits from health professionals.
Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and how it applied to the people living there particularly when they lacked capacity to make certain decisions affecting their life. The MCA 2005 provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach towards people. People told us staff knew them well and treated them as individuals. People were consulted with about the care they received and were given opportunities to express their views. People were supported to make decisions about things such as what they wanted to eat or drink, what they wanted to wear, and who and how they wished to spend their day including participation in activities.
Given the increasing needs of people living there, we recommend that the home consider best practice in relation to creating a 'dementia friendly' environment. The home had already started to do this with regards the home décor, including replacing heavily patterned carpets and table cloths.
The home had a complaints process. People and relatives were aware of it and had confidence that if they raised a concern they would be listened to and action taken to resolve the issue to their satisfaction. Staff had experience of supporting people at the end of their lives. Relatives spoke highly of the support staff had provided at this time.
People could express their views freely without fear of discrimination. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services including CQC and local authorities. Staff felt supported by management and their colleagues and enjoyed working at the home. Staff had regular, in-depth supervision where they received both praise and had opportunity to develop their practice. The home had established pro-active working relationships with health professionals which were helping people to stay well for longer and prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. Audits and quality assurance processes were used to identify opportunities for service improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Rodlands Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 21 people in a residential area of Weymouth. At the time of our inspection there were 17 older people living in the home.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. Care plans did not reflect that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people did not have clear capacity to make decisions for themselves. However, staff showed they understood the importance of enabling people to make their own decisions wherever possible and understood the need to provide care that is in a person’s best interests. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for where a person who needed to live in the home to be cared for safely did not have the mental capacity to consent to this.
People had support and care when they needed it from staff who had been safely recruited. These staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and spoke confidently about the support people needed to meet those needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had undertaken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received the training they needed to stay up to date with the care needs of people living in the home.
People felt safe. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks people faced and how to reduce these risks. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse. Information about how to report abuse was available to staff. People also told us they saw health care professionals when necessary and were supported to maintain their health by staff. People’s needs related to ongoing healthcare and health emergencies were met and recorded. People received their medicines as they were prescribed.
Everyone described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink.
Quality assurance had led to improvements being made and people, relatives and staff were invited to contribute their views to this process. Where improvements were identified as necessary following feedback action had been taken. For example there were plans to improve the range of activities available to people and decorating work had begun in the building after feedback from people and relatives. Staff, relatives and people spoke positively about the management and staff team as a whole.
During this inspection, we saw that at the entrance to the home there was guidance for visitors on how to reduce the risk of cross infection. Additional guidance for staff in the correct use of aprons had been produced and staff were observed following this guidance. An effective system designed to prevent, detect and control the spread of health care associated infections had been implemented.
People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. However, there were no effective management auditing systems in operation designed to prevent, detect and control the spread of health care associated infections. There was no guidance for visitors to reduce the risk of cross infection to protect people who used the service and staff.
The provider had effective systems to monitor pre-employment checks and recruitment procedures for staff.
The home had suitable systems to monitor the quality of service provided.
People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We observed people being supported by staff and saw that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People's views and experiences were taken into account.
Through reviewing arrangements for staff training in safeguarding people, talking to staff and reviewing care plans we found that people were protected because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.
A review of staff records and talking with staff demonstrated that people were safe and their needs were met by competent staff who told us they felt well supported. One member of staff said 'it's a close team'.
The provider had in place systems that sought people's views and took account of complaints and comments. This meant the provider had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service.
We saw that staff actively involved relatives in the assessment and review of the care needs of people. We observed that staff were respectful and considerate to people at the home.
We saw that some people went out on short outings to the shops and care workers sometimes organised activities such as bingo. There were no other organised activities at the time of our visit and the home was actively recruiting to fill the vacancy for an activities coordinator.
We found improvement in the assessment and documentation of each person's social history, interests and preferences. This had improved staff understanding of people as individuals and helped them plan and provide person centred care.
There was an improvement in the prevention and control of infection at the home. Disposable paper towels were available in shared toilets and bathrooms. Plans for refurbishment of toilet facilities and the laundry room had been drawn up and these were being implemented.
A permanent chef had been recruited to work in the kitchen and people were very pleased with the quality of meals and food provided.
Some people were able to tell us they were happy with their room and the home environment. One person told us the food at the home was fine. Others said the food variable but they got more than enough and the choice was good. One person, although limited in their insight as to why they were at the home, told us that they didn't like the activities and they were very bored. It wasn't clear that staff were aware of their previous interests.
We were able to observe how people experienced care and saw that staff were respectful and considerate and tried to take account of individual preferences. We observed that there were enough staff to help with personal needs and ensure that people were safe.